Like it or not, the New York Post is most certainly a newspaper and Fox News is most certainly a news station. There is no such thing as a completely unbiased news source and Fox News is no more biased than any other major news source. That includes much of the mainstream media and even news sources like the BBC, which some people incorrectly label as being unbiased. Everybody has their agenda, and that also includes certain comedy channels.

Fox News is a welcome breath of fresh air in a media landscape dominated by leftwing partisan hacks. Some mainstream media channels, such as MSNBC, essentially serves the same function as the state run media in North Korea (KCNA), and that function is to facilitate the dissemination of leftist propaganda.

"Breath of Fresh Air"? ... only for tubers under the sea that live on gas, industrial waste and excrement.

The NYTimes started their paywall about a week after I got my iPad 2. If I wanted to read an article on the NYTimes that wasn't free, I just used Safari. Or I could always sit at my computer and read them with my web browser. In my opinion, the NYTimes wants too much to subscribe to their iPad app. I don't read that many articles to make it worth while. I mostly am interested in technology articles and I can find plenty of those free from other apps such as CNET, Engadget, and tons others. It seems to me that the NYTimes is biased against iPad users if you can read the same stories free from your computer.

I would like to see the newspaper business make profits somehow, but if they want to make people pay for access they should make everyone pay, not just iPad users.

The fact that the interviewer said more that the person they were interviewing says a lot but the matter went further than that. During the discussion the host threw out a barrage of numbers and percentages and figures to supposedly underpin his claims. After the figures quoted were later falsified (wrong by a factor of 100,000x mind you) it was claimed that they were simply a hyperboleto make a point (which begs the question if the figures are not factual do you actually have a point worth making in the first place?).

That is bias.

By subscribing, one commits to a bias.
With a magazine or newspaper, everything is one-sided and you know exactly who's doing the "talking". When you buy into the NY Post, you probably buy into Fox News and vice versa.

Like it or not, the New York Post is most certainly a newspaper and Fox News is most certainly a news station. There is no such thing as a completely unbiased news source and Fox News is no more biased than any other major news source. That includes much of the mainstream media and even news sources like the BBC, which some people incorrectly label as being unbiased. Everybody has their agenda, and that also includes certain comedy channels.

Fox News is a welcome breath of fresh air in a media landscape dominated by leftwing partisan hacks. Some mainstream media channels, such as MSNBC, essentially serves the same function as the state run media in North Korea (KCNA), and that function is to facilitate the dissemination of leftist propaganda.

Microsoft tried with Internet Explorer to subjugate the internet to its way for over a decade, didn't hear a pip from either of you during that time.

Having what to do with anything? That's a completely different argument.

Quote:

Apple promotes HTML 5, the code with which www pages are written, yet you both conclude it's the death of www and one price internet because of the misguided actions of one local newspaper.

I couldn't care less about the paper, and I'm not relating to the article. I'm saying that since applications on devices can be easily more interactive, expansive, and monetized than a website, when does the Internet simply become ALL back-end, for-pay, application-only content?

As bad as NY Post is, I want to highlight one good thing. Their iPad subscription price is about half of the home delivery price. So at least they're offering it at a competitive price. It really disgusts me when companies are charging MORE for the online version than the print version.

Not that I'd subscribe to the Post either way, though.

NY Times gives you the online and ipad version for free when you subscribe to on of their papers.

Okay Mystic, Rot'nApple, Wigglesworth, I'm not finding the Firefox browser nor "crome" (sic) in the App Store. Oh, and Google Chrome doesn't show up either. I know that Opera is available, however that's one of three, not a good percentage.

Thank you.

Type "browser" in search and you will find a number of worthy alternatives, some free. I use Atomic, but also available on the first page are Skyfire, Opera Mini, Mercury, etc.

The original poster probably had no idea what browsers are available on the iPad, and was just naming prominent alternatives to Safari on Mac. Apply Hanlon's Razor here.

Who else would pay $500 to $830 for a "computer" that doesn't have a USB port?

Extremely intelligent people who enjoy using the latest technology and people who aren't homeless bums are the type of people that pay $500 to $830 for a tablet. These people can also afford to pay $29 for a camera adapter which gives them a USB port, if that connection is needed. Flash is mostly for losers who enjoy playing simplistic, silly games and for people who enjoy being bombarded with intrusive advertisements. I disable flash on my main machines and the lack of flash on an iPad is no loss at all.

The iPad is great and maybe if you flip 23,275 more burgers, you too can afford to buy one someday. Also, Apple has among the highest user satisfaction rate of any company. Don't be jealous, one day you too might be able to experience what it is like to own a revolutionary piece of hardware.

Extremely intelligent people who enjoy using the latest technology and people who aren't homeless bums are the type of people that pay $500 to $830 for a tablet. These people can also afford to pay $29 for a camera adapter which gives them a USB port, if that connection is needed. Flash is mostly for losers who enjoy playing simplistic, silly games and for people who enjoy being bombarded with intrusive advertisements. I disable flash on my main machines and the lack of flash on an iPad is no loss at all.

The iPad is great and maybe if you flip 23,275 more burgers, you too can afford to buy one someday. Also, Apple has among the highest user satisfaction rate of any company. Don't be jealous, one day you too might be able to experience what it is like to own a revolutionary piece of hardware.

Just don't feed the trolls at all. He has one post. His account has no meaning.

I still wish this blog had a feature that also blocked answers that quoted those on one's ban list.

Blog? This is a forum.

If you blocked replies that quoted his text, you'd also be blocking the rest of the reply, which might contain a quote from you or someone else; information you would want to read. It's for the best that you can't block to that extent.

That's a horrible argument, how the heck do you know what they were saying back then? Besides, I didn't see you say that back then, so does that mean you weren't complaining either?

Also, it's not just one rag that's tried to do it, there were others that tried, the New York Times is a higher profile case in trying to do a bizarre paywall scheme.

Okay, it was my poor way of expressing that Microsoft with Internet Explorer was a much greater thread to the web envisioned by Sir Tim Berners-Lee than Apple encouraging use of standard HTML 5. Fortunately Explorer is becoming more compliant with web standards.

The issue here is the creation of a paywall which artificially limits a particular device rather than other examples which limit any device from accessing content before payment.

Yeah, it's that kind of rag. It hardly seems worth the discussion. All this might just be an ill-conceived publicity stunt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][

Sure, why not? Publishers and newspapers are having a field day with this scandal. It's not their fault that a lying politician named Weiner decided to send pictures of his weiner to all sorts of women on the internet.

This joke is the kind of thing you would expect to see on Letterman, or Leno, or The Daily Show. It's not the kind of thing that one would expect to see in any legitimate or serious newspaper or journal or magazine, or other serious news media outlet. Of course they would publish the story, but a headline like that would not be on the WSJ, or Time Magazine.

Reminds me of one of those pseudo famous quotes.... and I can't find the source for it. Sorry.
"When you can't get a real journalism job, there's Fox News" -unknown

Just don't feed the trolls at all. He has one post. His account has no meaning.

Not to say I agree with the posts from vxhbnft in any way, but I do disagree with your assessment concerning the # of posts. You should evaluate what somebody says on the merit of their argument, their logic, and if the facts presented are correct. It doesn't matter if somebody has 1 post or 1000 posts.

If The Woz created an account today and his first post was verbatim what vxhbnft, would you argue that he is full of it based on "he has one post. His account has no meaning?"

Anyone who buys an iPad is a gullible person. So of course people will try to take them for a ride. Who else would pay $500 to $830 for a "computer" that doesn't have a USB port? Apple's insistence on banning Flash and Java from its iPhone OS has also forced users of its products to go through the App Store to view many web sites. Apple has made this a common occurrence. So, anyone who purchases an iPad really deserves to be ripped off for funding unethical companies like Apple and for failing to fully think through what they were doing.

Alternative 1. Hope someone on the subway leaves a copy of the NY Post on their seat.
Alternative 2. Find a fish store that still wraps fish with newspaper.
Alternative 3. Retrieve a copy of the NY Post used to pick up dog poo.

You are an idiot with persecution complexes. If you could "fail to fully think through what you were doing" you could have a half a brain, let alone two cents.

Ed and Rachel are columnists, not reporters; they make no pretense at being unbiased. Fox News presents opinion as fact, and pretends to be biased. The entire network is nothing more than a shill for the right wing.

Jon Stewart LIVE On Fox News, Tells Host 'You're Insane'

The Daily Show's Jon Stewart entered the proverbial lion's den, appearing live on Fox News Sunday to debate "media bias" with host Chris Wallace.
Early in the interview, Wallace flashed a previous quote of Stewart's calling Fox News a "relentless agenda-driven 24 hour news opinion propaganda delivery system," and asked Stewart, "Where do you come up with this stuff?"
Stewart responded, "Uh, it's actually quite easy."
Later, when Wallace argued that a clip about Sarah Palin from the Daily Show was political commentary, Stewart told Wallace, "You're insane... Here's the difference between you and I. I'm a comedian first. My comedy is informed by an ideological background, there's no question about that. But the thing that you will never understand...is that Hollywood, yeah, they're liberal, but that's not their primary motivating force. I'm not an activist. I am a comedian."
"Do I want my voice heard?" Stewart continued later. "Absolutely, that's why I got into comedy. Am I an activist, in your mind? A partisan ideological activist?" Wallace responded, "Yeah." "Okay, then I disagree with you," Stewart said. "You can't understand, because of the world that you live in, that there is not a designed ideological agenda on my part to affect partisan change because that's the soup you swim in. And I appreciate that, I understand it. It reminds me of in ideological regimes, they can't understand that there is free media other places because they receive marching orders."

Not to say I agree with the posts from vxhbnft in any way, but I do disagree with your assessment concerning the # of posts. You should evaluate what somebody says on the merit of their argument, their logic, and if the facts presented are correct. It doesn't matter if somebody has 1 post or 1000 posts.

Exactly. Except his post is full of trolling crap and he obviously created the account to troll and waste people's time.

I'd have a similar reaction to someone saying that Apple does no wrong.

Quote:

If The Woz created an account today and his first post was verbatim what vxhbnft, would you argue that he is full of it based on "he has one post. His account has no meaning?"

Okay, it was my poor way of expressing that Microsoft with Internet Explorer was a much greater thread to the web envisioned by Sir Tim Berners-Lee than Apple encouraging use of standard HTML 5. Fortunately Explorer is becoming more compliant with web standards.

The issue here is the creation of a paywall which artificially limits a particular device rather than other examples which limit any device from accessing content before payment.

OK. I don't get where HTML 5 comes into this discussion though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiker275

Not to say I agree with the posts from vxhbnft in any way, but I do disagree with your assessment concerning the # of posts. You should evaluate what somebody says on the merit of their argument, their logic, and if the facts presented are correct. It doesn't matter if somebody has 1 post or 1000 posts.

If The Woz created an account today and his first post was verbatim what vxhbnft, would you argue that he is full of it based on "he has one post. His account has no meaning?"

Youre right that everyone has to start somewhere. I don't think Woz would troll like that though, and I think that's a very key difference here. Someone that comes in with their frst post with demeaning comments really deserves to be considered a troll and ignored.

Looks like you've made the same error in reasoning as the author of that piece. There's more web traffic today than in 2000 -- and probably more ftp traffic than in 1990 -- despite the fact that it's a smaller proportion of the overall. And, a lot, if not most, of that video traffic is probably served from web sites. It would be nice if a certain amount of thought went into the things people write.

I expect this to be common once ipad gets ios 5 with the feature that turns articles into an easy to read ebook like form. Once the media companies get wind of whats possible, they will all do this...this is all about ad revenue and the browser feature as demonstrated in the public WWDC keynote may in my opinion, killing the views for those ads...

This is the next war, just like DRM vs the users over the last 10 years, the next war is written content creators vs the companies that defeat the advertising headaches they foist on us...

You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.

Exactly. It's just an end in itself. There is no purpose in owning one aside from looking cool. It's a status symbol, just like every other product Apple makes.

Of course that answer is not quite in fitting with what you think you are agreeing with. He said the iPad was the latest and greatest technology, agreeing with that does not lead to your second point.

Quote:

Flash can do far more things than HTML, CSS, and JavaScript can. So, obviously you are the one with a simplistic view of things. Maybe if you actually knew anything about how the Web works you'd agree.

No it can't.

Quote:

I actually make about $40,000 a year providing technical support for a large web site. And you?

Also, I doubt anyone who buys one is "Extremely intelligent" given they're paying hundreds of dollars for a product that can do far less than a regular computer can. You essentially have to ask permission from Apple to install anything on one and they're extremely difficult to repair, among other disadvantages.

In general you are the kind of guy who doesn't like Apple. Poor, not very bright, very little technical nous, and not really understanding what is going on. The product - the iPad - is at the forefront of mobile technology, and can do pretty much what a computer can do, which given it's price, is amazing. For every degree of portability we gain we have to lose, for now, some processor power. The 3.5 quad core Ghz iMac - which apparently is the world's fastest computer when running windows: booted from boot camp - is not going to fit in a mac book pro, and the mac book pro chip is not going to fit in a tablet.

The iPad has the fastest mobile chip and SOC, and amazing graphics cards. It is top of the range.

I'm not an Apple user but this move by the NY Post will hopefully have serious legal ramifications. Sadly, part of the problem here is Apple (something not mentioned in the article). They are partly responsible for these kinds of move and continue to laugh all the way to the bank at the expense of their users.

I really don't expect Apple to change anything to combat this since companies like the NY Post are their true customers.

I'm not an Apple user but this move by the NY Post will hopefully have serious legal ramifications.

What legal ramifications could possibly apply here? The website has no legal obligation to give out any free content.

Quote:

Sadly, part of the problem here is Apple (something not mentioned in the article). They are partly responsible for these kinds of move and continue to laugh all the way to the bank at the expense of their users.

I really don't expect Apple to change anything to combat this since companies like the NY Post are their true customers.

If Apple users dont like it they can move on. If the NYPost makes money on this they will do the same on an Android tablet. Openness wont save that. Clearly the NYPost has decided it is not making enough from ads on free websites, something a lot of content producers now feel.

The cost is a bit too much, but like print, some news papers will be free and totally ad supported, some will cost and be partially ad supported, and some will get most of their revenue from paying customers. That last model is rare in print, but will become more common in digital.

In general you are the kind of guy who doesn't like Apple. Poor, not very bright, very little technical nous, and not really understanding what is going on.

Well, I am well into 6 figures, not poor or ignorant and I support tens of thousands of apple products. You sir are a perfect example of why new customers don't want anything to do with many apple fans and you give fans a bad name.

Only a matter of time before they adjust the browser detect to also block the other IOS primary browsers...The iPad itself is a paywall to Internet content that has been primarily free for a decade. Like it or not - its time to reap what you boys have sowed. - Koof

No they won't Koof because the other browsers have settings to emulate Firefox or Safari desktop - which is exactly what Apple should be doing with it's mobile browser. As for your clueless soap box comment, go back to banging your Windows box and stroking your Android bar.

I'm not an Apple user but this move by the NY Post will hopefully have serious legal ramifications. Sadly, part of the problem here is Apple (something not mentioned in the article). They are partly responsible for these kinds of move and continue to laugh all the way to the bank at the expense of their users.

I really don't expect Apple to change anything to combat this since companies like the NY Post are their true customers.

I was waiting for someone to try and pin this on Apple. How exactly is Apple responsible for this?

And also, what legal ramifications do you foresee? I've got news for you. The NY Post is a business. It made a business decision to charge for content. There's nothing illegal about that.

The app should be free because it is a reader type of program -- similar to Adobe Reader (being free that is). Then, in addition to subscriptions, allow single edition purchases -- that would be better than their current setup. Also allow the front page to be free with partial articles -- then it would at least be similar to the experience of walking into a store or newsstand and looking over newspapers and picking out one to buy.